Jay Pipes wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 7, 2011 at 10:43 AM, Dan Prince <dan.pri...@rackspace.com> wrote:
>> Bugs vs. Blueprints is sort of a gray area. When a larger blue print is
>> accepted (like the Openstack 1.1 API) should we file component features as
>> bugs or blueprints?
>>
>> In my case I could have easily considered this a bug as well since we should
>> already support the v1.0 API right?
>
> Ya, probably should have been a bug, but it's OK. I agree there is
> some confusion over bugs vs. blueprints...
Right, there is definitely some overlap between feature (blueprint) and
bug in a corner case: incomplete features. When you develop feature A
and land parts A1 A2 and A3, then realize that A4 is missing, it's a bug
("A is missing support for A4") and a feature ("Add A4 support") at the
same time. Those are usually good targets for exceptions, if they are
relatively self-contained.
My rule of thumb would be to consider them "features" until you release
a version where they are missing, at which point it becomes a "bug"
(i.e. acknowledge that it's an incomplete feature at release time).
Cheers,
--
Thierry Carrez (ttx)
Release Manager, OpenStack
_______________________________________________
Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~openstack
Post to : openstack@lists.launchpad.net
Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~openstack
More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
